Posted on 09/14/2006 8:00:51 PM PDT by Clintonfatigued
The secret of American schooling is that it doesn’t teach the way children learn, and it isn’t supposed to; school was engineered to serve a concealed command economy and a deliberately re-stratified social order. It wasn’t made for the benefit of kids and families as those individuals and institutions would define their own needs. School is the first impression children get of organized society; like most first impressions, it is the lasting one. Life according to school is dull and stupid, only consumption promises relief: Coke, Big Macs, fashion jeans, that’s where real meaning is found, that is the classroom’s lesson, however indirectly delivered.
The decisive dynamics which make forced schooling poisonous to healthy human development aren’t hard to spot. Work in classrooms isn’t significant work; it fails to satisfy real needs pressing on the individual; it doesn’t answer real questions experience raises in the young mind; it doesn’t contribute to solving any problem encountered in actual life. The net effect of making all schoolwork external to individual longings, experiences, questions, and problems is to render the victim listless. This phenomenon has been well-understood at least since the time of the British enclosure movement which forced small farmers off their land into factory work. Growth and mastery come only to those who vigorously self-direct. Initiating, creating, doing, reflecting, freely associating, enjoying privacy—these are precisely what the structures of schooling are set up to prevent, on one pretext or another.
(Excerpt) Read more at johntaylorgatto.com ...
"Yes, it is. The entire concept is fatally flawed.It's a bad idea, unless you're a socialist oligarch."- Do not be a parrot - think first, squeak later. So were American public schools of, say, 1908 fatally flawed as well? I remember seeing somewhere [WSJ, I believe, some years ago] a reprint of NJ high school entrance exam from that time, with a highly approving commentary to the tune of the good old standards of the good old days. Similar memorabilia periodically surface in other places, FR included, with the same tenor of the comments. It is the 1960s and the baggage from there which is fatally flawed, in education and in other places.
Yes. Our present school system is that system taken to its logical conclusion.
And as to your advice about not being a parrot, thank you...it's good advice.
I have known many wonderful parents who have some of their kids turn out well, while one or two of their other children have serious academic and social problems. These kids are being raised by the same parents, in same family. Amazing! Every one of these parents has said that it was the friends made in government schools that were the cause of their unsuccessfully children's problems.
In my opinion, government school is taking a crap shoot with your child's life.
We all have tarts and abusers as kids, we don't know how to raise polite, conservative, smart, funny or nice kids.
Smart, polite, funny, curious, and socially poised government schooled children do NOT come to my office. Every homeschooled child coming into my office, without a single exception **is** polite, smart, funny and nice. All the homeschooled child are not conservative, since liberals homeschool too.
The deterioration of the homeschooled child, once admitted to government school, is also plainly evident to me and my entire staff.
The only good kids are raised by the wonderful bunch of selfless parents who don't trust themselves to be a better role model or a greater infuence to their children than some teachers (not to even consider the fact that there a a great deal of good teachers) for a few hours a day
The child spends 6 to 7 hours in institutionalized schooling. Then there is 1 to 2 or more hours of homework at night. Add to this 1 to 3 hours of bus stop and bus riding time. Then add in a few hours that the child spend socializing with his government school "friends" on the Internet, phone, and text messaging. I would add the hour of the pre-school "morning out the door" hassle. Throw in an afternoon and weekend activity or two.
Then subtract the 9 to 10 hours of sleep needed by children and teens.
What is left for this wonderful time left for parental influence? Precious little. Any parent who thinks they can overcome government school influence and socialization is shouting at a government school cultural tsunami.
Thankfully, humans are very resilient. Most overcome their toxic government school experience. Sadly, too many do not. Some siblings seem unaffected, other siblings from the same family drown in the cesspool.
"Then I proudly wear the label of "Squeaker". - Truly you continue parroting/squeaking 'homeschool, homeschool". OK, take a cracker. In my # 15 [had you taken the effort to comprehend it] I was addressing the question of what it is [or could be] so special about the homeschool, and whether it is possible to transplant that "it" into other settings, possibly with greater success. I diagnosed that "it" as the student segregation by ability. To implement it on a reasonably broad scale in the US, one would have to start with a radical reinterpretation of the USSC Brown decision.
I would ask if you were running some sort of welfare clinic, but even among the less affluent public school students I teach, I've found some who were smart, polite, funny, curious, and socially poised.
That sort of student is more prevalent in the more affluent group of public school students.
The one with IQ 160 would have found the going to be slightly easier, and would complete the work a few minutes earlier than others, that's all. But bored or held back s/he would not be, at least from what I've seen there. Probably there are IQ stream bands within which the students are still compatible, and IQ 200 happen so rarely that they were not there. And as for "Sorry, you are not gifted enough!" - this is precisely what I am going to say [and without the "sorry" part, either] when an applicant fails the entrance selection exams, or a pupil slows the others down, fails and cannot handle the load. It is the same principle on which the sports teams are selected. The "fairness" does not apply in either case.
As a postscriptum. Judging from the language culture [i.e culture of thinking] you have demonstrated [referred to in #47 - it is beyond the typos] I tend to doubt your whole story. And English is my second language, to boot.
I hope you won't mind, but I'm going to make a guess that you probably don't have children. My guess is that, if you did, you would decide to homeschool, too. :-)
Your school experience and mine are nothing like school today. Picture yourself with a daughter, for example. You probably would teach her to read at a young age, like I taught my son. Then you would take her to preschool registration, mention to the teachers and administrators there that your child can read, and watch them shrug off that information and stick her in a class to learn colors, shapes, and how to write the alphabet, even though she can already do all those things and more. The only thing your child will be learning new is how to line up and behave in a classroom environment.
If your child's birthday falls in the middle of the school year, you might even be able to pull some strings and have her moved up a grade level. But then you'll notice there are children two years older than her in her class, and some of them are cursing, and now the school wants to show her a video called "Family Life" so that she will learn to accept "all types of families." Meanwhile, the middle school she soon will be attending has a "lockdown" now and then so the police can search for drugs. Academically, she is still learning more at home on her own time.
I would almost bet that, given those circumstances, you, too, would pull your child out in an instant. ;-)
Given your reference to "Aryan physics" and your later remark about the "Brown decision," in addition to previous threads I remember on the "Bell Curve", I think a guess that you're a white supremacist is not too far-fetched. Am I correct? (If I'm wrong, I apologize for any offense).
As a parent, I have come to realize that a child's intelligence is the result of his or her upbringing. I believe genetics has very little to do with it. But I'm not interested in debating that issue. I just want to point out that the idea of placing people into "groups", whether by "IQ", "race", or any characteristic, and then forcing other taxpayers to educate the chosen ones better than the others is NOT in line with conservative thinking.
If a high I.Q. is hereditary, then the parents of a child with a high I.Q. must be as intelligent as the child, and they are probably successful and financially stable. They would be able to afford to purchase a superior education on the free market. If they wanted to associate only with certain people, they would be free to do so.
Out here, on the free market, which is where homeschooling exists, my family can associate freely with whomever we choose. There is a support group for every type of family out here, and these groups can be as inclusive or exclusive as we like. I strongly prefer all-inclusive but conservative groups. I happen to know of a child considered a "genius" who is being homeschooled. If all education were sold on the free market, the "geniuses" could get together and form their own exclusive schools. Meanwhile, everyone else wouldn't be forced to pay for them, and we each could educate our own children as we see fit.
I am glad you recognize that homeschooling is not an option (nor would it likely be the preferable option from society's standpoint) for all children.
As a public school teacher, I don't get to meet the parents of all of my students. Some parents either aren't concerned enough or possibly unable due to work commitments to come meet the teachers on the several occasions we provide for that purpose. They also don't schedule conferences at other times.
From my limited experience with parents, however, I've noticed that unconventionally dressed students generally have unconventional parents, and conservatively dressed parents usually have conservatively dressed children.
It seems likely to me that parents who are very concerned about and involved with their children are more likely to homeschool than those who are not, and I'd suspect that the percentage of concerned parents who homeschool might depend upon the perceived quality of the local school system as well.
I am glad you recognize that homeschooling is not an option (nor would it likely be the preferable option from society's standpoint) for all children.
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Why would institutionalization of children for their education be the preferable option from a society's standpoint? Why is an inferior method of education children preferable, for heaven's sake?
It will soon be evident that homeschooling is the most natural, healthy, and effective way to raise a child to an emotionally and educationally secure adulthood.
That some children must be institutionalized for their education is sad. We need orphanages, too, but no one is saying it is the best way to raise a child.
I was definitely speaking from experience as a pupil, not a parent. And I think some home-schooling always goes on; kids don't learn everything in school. I doubt I would have done that full time, though, since I am dedicated to having a full time career (which may be a very good reason I don't have kids in the first place!).
There were certainly kids older than I when I was in my various grades, but I don't imagine that school overall is very similar now to my student days (however, the rule probably hasn't changed about saying "there are children two years older than SHE", not "there are children two years older than *her* in her class", as in your post). My mother was a schoolteacher as well, so she was never off duty when it came to correcting my grammar! :)
I have never heard of middle schools right near us having "drug search lockdowns", so that may be more a situation of the particular district or kind of neighborhood, than nationwide school policy.
If your message is that things have changed in the last thirty five years or so, I don't doubt it. They've changed in every other aspect of life as well.
I haven't noticed that.
For wintertime, it's his/her way or no way. For people like that, the need to feel superior because of their choices exceeds their desire to simply be doing what is right for them.
It will soon be evident that homeschooling is the most natural, healthy, and effective way to raise a child to an emotionally and educationally secure adulthood.
I rest my case...
In 1998, I did work in an inner-city welfare clinic in Philadelphia. None of the children were homeschooled. It likely would have been impossible for their parents. These children need to be institutionalized for their education.
For students to be homeschooled by parents who are barely, if at all, educated themselves is not in society's best interests. This may or may not include those parents who are addicts, criminals, and/or have no work ethic.
Homeschooling is a choice, and it works quite well for some families. For others, it is impossible, and for still others it simply isn't the best choice.
Of course, wintertime, sometimes your rhetoric is so extreme that I wonder if perhaps you aren't just trying to parody a homeschooler. Surely you don't expect us to take everything you say seriously? :-)
Homeschooling is a choice, and it works quite well for some families.
Those children,being educated at home by motivated and capable parents, are in the most ideal educational setting.
For others, it is impossible, and for still others it simply isn't the best choice.
For those children whose parents are too ill-educated, too sick, too poor, etc., then institutionalization is likely the only alternative. Orphanages are the "best choice" too for some children, but no one would claim that this is an ideal situation for them.
Of course, wintertime, sometimes your rhetoric is so extreme that I wonder if perhaps you aren't just trying to parody a homeschooler. Surely you don't expect us to take everything you say seriously? :-)
It is becoming plainly and "seriously" evident that homeschoolers shine, on average, both academically and socially. It is not "extreme" to state, that, if possible, this would be the best educational setting for almost all children. If their parents are incapable, then a less than ideal institutional setting will be necessary.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.